ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Greg Siskind on Immigration Law and Policy

THE UNITED STATES V. ARIZONA

Rating: 4 votes, 5.00 average.
Not a shock (and already mentioned in the comment). The Obama Administration is officially challenging SB1070. This was strongly suggested in various White House comments over the last few weeks, but it's nice to see something official.

Submit "THE UNITED STATES V. ARIZONA" to Facebook Submit "THE UNITED STATES V. ARIZONA" to Twitter Submit "THE UNITED STATES V. ARIZONA" to Google Submit "THE UNITED STATES V. ARIZONA" to StumbleUpon Submit "THE UNITED STATES V. ARIZONA" to Reddit Submit "THE UNITED STATES V. ARIZONA" to Digg Submit "THE UNITED STATES V. ARIZONA" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. USC's Avatar
    It is amazing how perspectives can differ. It makes me wonder if Pearce is an idiot, fool or a cad. From Greg's link, here is him blathering:

    "The lawsuit drew fierce criticism from Russell Pearce, the Arizona state legislator who authored the law. "Shame on them. This is malfeasance and they are in violation of their oaths of office," he told Reuters after the lawsuit was filed."

    Wonder why he he doesn't want a Judge to adjudicate this if he so sure of himself? How can filing a lawsuit be a violation of an oath of office? I wonder who is the one violating their Oath of Office by refusing to uphold the United States Constitution (First & Third Causes of Action).

    But enough about Pearce. This fight is not really about the illegals. It is about the type of country we want to be. As first the ABA, then the United States and now the NY Times point out:

    "The Arizona law would also divert critical law enforcement resources and would cause the "detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants and citizens" who do not have to carry identification papers, the department said."

    Thus this law, compels USCs, to carry identification cards under pain of indefinite imprisonment. The author of this law might feel at home in 1930s Germany/Italy or 1970s South Africa/USSR. In any event, he does not belong in the United States!

  2. Jack's Avatar
    "White House officials said President Obama was not involved in the Justice Department's decision to sue."

    If he wasn't on board with something this politically controversial, they would have just gone ahead anyway? Sure. It's not going to provide him any political cover because no one is na?ve enough to buy that he had no influence. If they're going to make such a ludicrous claim, reporters should follow up on it--but don't hold your breath.



    "a senior department official said the decision to file the lawsuit -- and to do so on pre-emption grounds, rather than other civil rights issues"

    That's funny, I don't remember the Supremacy Clause being the focus of all the criticism from the Obama administration. I thought Obama said in his recent speech that the Arizona law would violate civil rights and was "unenforceable"? If it's really unenforceable (impossible to enforce without violating civil rights), then why not a facial challenge? If Obama and Holder really believed what they said, how can their Justice Department not attack the constitutionality of the Arizona law's standard to inquire about illegal presence? Maybe someone realized (or cynically knew all along) that if you attack the constitutionality of state law which mirrors federal law you are also attacking the constitutionality of the federal law and that the federal standard already established by the courts is not even as strict as that of the Arizona law. So after all their hysteria (e.g., the scary ice cream shop sweep), now in court they aren't even claiming that the law is unconstitutional, just that it is in conflict, and not even with federal law itself but merely their use of resources strategy, i.e., we reserve the right to make sure the law is not enforced except when we want it? Yeah, that makes them look like they take immigration law enforcement seriously and by not following through, it looks like all their talk was exactly what they accuse others of--inflaming, politicizing, demagoguery, etc.
  3. Legal and no longer waiting's Avatar
    Jack, in no way AZ law mirrors Federal law. You obviously have not compared the two.
  4. USC's Avatar
    Let's hope that the matter is assigned to Judge Bolton so that an injunction can be issued July 15 or July 22.

    http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2010/07/whats-next-for-united-states-v-arizona.html

    The Motion for Summary Judgment that has so impressed the law professor is linked below:

    http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/arizona-pi-brief.pdf

    INS Affidavit in support of Motion for Summary Judgment:

    http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/declaration-of-michael-aytes.pdf

  5. USC's Avatar
    "Jack, in no way AZ law mirrors Federal law. You obviously have not compared the two"

    Correct! Read the Motion for Summary Judgment linked below.
  6. Another Voice's Avatar
    Jack just because they felt that one legal argument was more compelling than the other and they had a better chance to defeat it with this one does not make the other argument not true, if they wanted to go with the other argument they would have had to wait longer and the law would have taken effect. Your comments "it looks like all their talk was exactly what they accuse others of--inflaming, politicizing, demagoguery, etc. " actually make you and the other antis look like this.....
    "Maybe someone realized (or cynically knew all along) that if you attack the constitutionality of state law which mirrors federal law you are also attacking the constitutionality of the federal law and that the federal standard already established by the courts is not even as strict as that of the Arizona law."

    Or maybe they picked the best legal strategy and just decided to be smart lawyers.... they are filling suit to win this you know!!!
  7. USC's Avatar
    It would be interesting drama if the People's trial attorney (who is of Indian origin/Immigrant?) were profiled and asked to prove her citizenship:

    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/varu-chilakamarri/6/a22/56a

  8. My 2 cents's Avatar
    Losing this lawsuit or not even able to get an injunction on the AZ law would be defeating for the Feds & Obama.
  9. Geroge Chell's Avatar
    Any proponent of legal immigration will not want the illegal immigration problem solved..ever. History tells us that once they solve the illegal immigration problem, they will go after the legals and even worse, they will try to deport people who dont look like them. In the UK now, they have started going after legals by capping visas for skilled workers at an absurdly low level of about 4,000 a year for non-EU folks including Indians...this is both temporary and permanent migration. In addition, British National Party favors deportation of everyone who they do not consider as white. Now there is no reason to believe that with folks like Russell Pearce, this wont be the case if they ever manage to deport all illegals. Meanwhile, Indians complain about visa restrictions. I am advising the government to put a cap of 100 on British workers admitted to the country other than on the British aid program DFID and the sportsmen. However, they have been resisting. I think they will be able to get all the talent in Asia if they try and if need be from other migrant friendly countries such as Canada, Australia, NZ and even the USA...they dont need the Brits!
  10. Legal and no longer waiting's Avatar
    George, you are correct, that was the famous "bigoted woman" comment by the Labor party politician. Bigoted people will just find their next target - if not brown, then white, if not illegal then legal. Gotta have somebody to hate!

    The same goes to those proposing Constitutional ammendment to take away citizenship at birth. Every time they say the original ammendment had a different purpose, it strikes me that the this was exactly the purpose of the ammendment - to stop bigots from taking away rights of people just because they don't look like them (aka not white or speak a different language).
  11. Geroge Chell's Avatar
    "George, you are correct, that was the famous "bigoted woman" comment by the Labor party politician. Bigoted people will just find their next target - if not brown, then white, if not illegal then legal. Gotta have somebody to hate!

    The same goes to those proposing Constitutional ammendment to take away citizenship at birth. Every time they say the original ammendment had a different purpose, it strikes me that the this was exactly the purpose of the ammendment - to stop bigots from taking away rights of people just because they don't look like them (aka not white or speak a different language)."

    The solution then is simple...keep the antis engaged on illegal immigration, so that they dont have time to deal with the legals..slowly through a combination of immigration and high non-white birth rates make America majority minority...if whites are no longer a majority in this country. Perhaps if there is no majority, this nonsense wont happen. Everything racists Russel "the Racist" Pearce and Jan "the Bigot" Brewer want to do seem to me like an act of desparation..desparately trying to keep America white! If the black women cooperate we can achieve this sooner..if the black women have mail order husband program in Africa and the Caribbean to offset a shortage of eligible black men here in this country..we can probably achieve this by 2020...but I am not that optimistic!

  12. Legal and no longer waiting's Avatar
    George, AZ is one of the states with high non-white rates, and see what hapenned. As much as I wish the situation changes with the growth of non-whites, the evidence goes the other way most of the time. We can go down the list of differencies that can set off rage in a hater, and very soon they become so minor, most people would not understand them (Northern Ireland anyone?), but they can still unleash a wave of hate.

    I only see two factors that may contribute to reducing bigotry over time. Proof that having an open immigration policy helps the economy (Canada and Australia may be able to pave the way) and having more children exposed to other countries and cultures at a young age.

    PS You might have a point about Africans. I have worked with several, and women (black and white alike) love them.
  13. Geroge Chell's Avatar
    "George, AZ is one of the states with high non-white rates, and see what hapenned. As much as I wish the situation changes with the growth of non-whites, the evidence goes the other way most of the time. We can go down the list of differencies that can set off rage in a hater, and very soon they become so minor, most people would not understand them (Northern Ireland anyone?), but they can still unleash a wave of hate.

    I only see two factors that may contribute to reducing bigotry over time. Proof that having an open immigration policy helps the economy (Canada and Australia may be able to pave the way) and having more children exposed to other countries and cultures at a young age."

    Yes. But, they are not a majority of the electorate, not even California. The only three places were minorities are majority of the electorate are DC, NM and Hawaii. Do you even envision AZ kind of laws in those state? I think not. Not from the GOP, not from the Dems. Sad to say whites are the problem especially in the South. It is very difficult to get rid of bigotry and prejudices developed over the period of history. America is a debtor country. Now if US was a creditor country, guess what will happen. It will be 1924 all over again. In South Asian farmer's markets, produce comes in hauled by a donkey cart. After the produce is unloaded, the farmer ties the hind legs of the donkey. Once a kid playing mischief cut the thread and the donkey leaped from one stall to the other upsetting the cart. Unfortunately, in some respects, the US is like the Donkey (not the Democratic party)..the debt is not just a string tied to its hindlegs but a big milstone...which it cannot shake loose..Pearce, Brewer and others would like to behave like the racists did back in 1924..too bad for them and good for the rest of us, that the milstone would not let them behave a lot worse!

  14. My 2 cents's Avatar
    George, Canada has started capping on skilled worker intake it is 1000 per profession every year. This trend is spreading to most Western nations.
  15. Jay's Avatar
    All hypocrisy. If deporting illegals were that easy and financially feasible then the past governments would have done it long time back. Both Republicans and Democrats know that a fix is needed, but are playing with the sentiments and lives of people (read both undocumented and aspiring legal immigrants) for their political gains. Example: Immigration flip-flop by McCain, and no set timelines by Democrats, only talk. For HCR, they don't need help from Republicans, but for CIR they need Republican help with 59 Democrats in the Senate. Who are you kidding??
    And for those who keep ranting about deporting all illegals, go get an education, hopefully then you will understand the complexities of the problem at hand.
  16. Legal and no longer waiting's Avatar
    Jay, Jack is the resident anti. Every good pro-immigrant blog should have one :-)
    Even though majority of the participants are legal EB immigrants, I think we have an overwhelming agreement that illegals contribute greatly to the economy and that mass deportation are not feasibile and a bad idea overall. The disagreement is usually around how to go around reforming the immigration system.
  17. USC's Avatar
    "George, Canada has started capping on skilled worker intake it is 1000 per profession every year."

    "In the UK now, they have started going after legals by capping visas for skilled workers at an absurdly low level of about 4,000 a year for non-EU folks including Indians...this is both temporary and permanent migration."

    Given that the antis are liable to latch on to the above and claim that we have the most liberal immigration system (we do not), the above statements need to be placed in perspective.

    First Canada:

    http://www.southasianfocus.ca/community/article/90286

    "The limit does not apply to applicants with a job offer but applying through the points system. Further, it has no bearing at all on the temporary foreign worker program, which comes under a separate stream."

    "The minister however took pains to stress overall immigration numbers will not shrink - if anything, they will continue trending towards the higher number in the range - nor would family, refugee or any other category suffer."

    Now the UK:

    http://www.visafirst.com/en/news_and_updates.asp?item_id=1151

    "The Home Secretary Theresa May said that the number of skilled workers from non-EU countries immigrating to UK will be reduced to 24,100 until April 2011 - a cut of 1,300. This is a temporary move to bring down the number of immigrants while the government sets up a permanent law."

    This is a reduction of about 5% over the prior level to 24,100 (not 4,000) and again only applies to the UK point system category.

    Conclusion(s):

    (a) The nation of immigrants is the only one which maintains unrealistic and inflexible quotas for a whole range of categories.

    (b) Communal parties such as the Conservatives in Canada & the UK (now implementing the restrictions above), the BJP (restricted birthright citizenship) in India and the Cans (responsible for the mess that is Arizona) in the USA are xenophobic and pander to the bigots.

    (c) Given that the UK and Canada have had to implement a quota for the point system, it should be obvious that this experiment in social engineering is a failure and those of us who opposed it in CIR 2007 were right.




  18. Geroge Chell's Avatar
    All I ask is fairness. I have no problem UK kicking out its immigrants as long as we kick the Brits out of countries such as Singapore, India and even the US. I have no problem if Aussies want to get rid of its immigrants as long as Singapore, Hong Kong etc kick the Aussies out. No problem Singaporeans (not their government) not wanting to allow foreigners in their country, as long as Singaporeans are kicked out of other countries in equal proportion.
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: